Will DC statehood happen if Dems have 52 Senate seats and narrowly hold the House after the midterms

[VBM]

The Democratic Party is a f**king joke if we still can’t get DC statehood passed under these conditions. This should be one of the very first things that the Dems do.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, and possibly Puerto Rico as well.

BUT I was fairly confident we'd get DC statehood with our 50/50 senate, so who knows?

[vitoNova]

DC statehood will never happen.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Option 4 (pessimist)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I can’t see why it wouldn’t happen under these conditions.  Maybe it depends on exactly how “narrow” the House is, but certainly if Dems have >220 seats.

I’d like to see Puerto Rico statehood happen as well, but that’s a longer road; at the very least, you need to have a binding referendum there including a draft state constitution.

[Mr. Smith]

Only if the filibuster is done away with entirely. Nuke that and it'll happen.

[VBM]

I can’t see why it wouldn’t happen under these conditions.  Maybe it depends on exactly how “narrow” the House is, but certainly if Dems have >220 seats.

I’d like to see Puerto Rico statehood happen as well, but that’s a longer road; at the very least, you need to have a binding referendum there including a draft state constitution.

Someone like Feinstein or Warner could suddenly decide that they actually love the filibuster and don’t want to do anything to it

[Yoda]

I believe no,(and that's a bad thing) but not b/c if dems had the votes to do it that they wouldn't try. I think SCOTUS would step in and invent a reason to stop all those black and brown democrats from having representation in the Senate. Those 6 republican politicians in robes are not going to allow their political party to have to fight on a more even playing field. They will make up any utter nonsense in order to keep the Senate as structurally biased towards republicans as it is currently.

[TheReckoning]

DC wasn’t made a state for a reason. DC won’t get statehood, and that will be a good thing.

[Frodo]

No, and that's because opponents at least have a coherent argument why the District of Columbia should not be granted statehood, one that is worth consideration.  I see no such impediments to Puerto Rico becoming a state, however, should that be their wish.  

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes but we will have more than 52 seats because OH, NC, UT, SD and FL are in play too

[Mr. Smith]

No, and that's because opponents at least have a coherent argument why the District of Columbia should not be granted statehood, one that is worth consideration.  I see no such impediments to Puerto Rico becoming a state, however, should that be their wish.  

Give it time, someone will find something.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

DC wasn’t made a state for a reason. DC won’t get statehood, and that will be a good thing.

If Ds get 55 seats and hood the H Ds will pass DC or PR Statehood, Rs can sue if they want up to SCOTUS

[ProudModerate2]

Option 4 (pessimist)

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

52 seats there are 20 Rs up and only 14 Ds that means Rs have 6 more seats up than Ds and there are 6 vulnerable seats WI, PA, OH, NC, FL and UT

As far as us losing the H and not winning wave Insurance Senate seats we were down 241 H seats and still won MO, OH and FL Senate seats in 2012 all the Rs need is 5 H seats to take over that has nothing to do with the Senate

When the polls close every state in the Senate will be called except the ones I mentioned and SD, IN and maybe KY because KY so early if Paul underperforms we know it's a blue wave, I know Paul is gonna underperform because he is gonna be leading like McConnell by 11 but it's gonna get closer not further ahead like in McConnell race

Anyways races in the Senate arent gonna be called like the H all Rs need is a few seats in FL and TXH  that's it

Some R users and some Doomer Ds think as soon as swing state polls close it's gonna be called no even Abbott and DeSantis race aren't gonna be called Early but Scott and Sununu race will be called

[MillennialModerate]

If it became apparent that it was going to pass and become a reality - I wonder how Republicans would respond if Dems came to them and offered a compromise - a constitutional amendment giving DC a single Senator and two members of the House (pushing the House to 437 seats)

With that said - there is 0% of this happening

The reason I say it won’t is because there is almost zero chance of Dems taking the house. I mean zero. So stop the fantasy.

If it did however - Dems would be insane not too. For one because it’s the right thing to xh do, giving Americans without representation the representation they deserve. And for two it evens out our electoral system which is HEAVILY titled against the will of the people and to the Republicans. I

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I believe no,(and that's a bad thing) but not b/c if dems had the votes to do it that they wouldn't try. I think SCOTUS would step in and invent a reason to stop all those black and brown democrats from having representation in the Senate. Those 6 republican politicians in robes are not going to allow their political party to have to fight on a more even playing field. They will make up any utter nonsense in order to keep the Senate as structurally biased towards republicans as it is currently.

Good point

[Orser67]

Hopefully, but I think the filibuster is a real impediment. The mere mention of the filibuster tends to provoke outrage on the left, or more generally people questioning why anyone wouldn't want to do away with it. But for most of the people who actually serve in the Senate, I don't think they take the question of abolishing the filibuster lightly, even if it's "just" another exception applying solely to the admission of states, and I don't think it can just be taken for granted that all Democrats but Manchin and Sinema will vote for it. I think there are also real constitutional questions at issue, though personally I'm satisfied with the way the D.C. Admission Act handles it.

[emailking]

With that said - there is 0% of this happening

The reason I say it won’t is because there is almost zero chance of Dems taking the house. I mean zero. So stop the fantasy.

Nahh man. Fivethirtyeight says 30% chance in its most Dem pessimistic model. For comparison, that was about what they had Trump's chances of winning on election night 2016. We've got to be realistic about it both ways.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If it became apparent that it was going to pass and become a reality - I wonder how Republicans would respond if Dems came to them and offered a compromise - a constitutional amendment giving DC a single Senator and two members of the House (pushing the House to 437 seats)

With that said - there is 0% of this happening

The reason I say it won’t is because there is almost zero chance of Dems taking the house. I mean zero. So stop the fantasy.

If it did however - Dems would be insane not too. For one because it’s the right thing to xh do, giving Americans without representation the representation they deserve. And for two it evens out our electoral system which is HEAVILY titled against the will of the people and to the Republicans. I

The citizens of DC should reject this “compromise” because it does not make them a state.
The purpose of statehood is not to give an area two Senators.  Its purpose is to allow the residents of that area to choose their own laws and government, rather than being governed by people elected by the residents of somewhere else.

[Del Tachi]

If it became apparent that it was going to pass and become a reality - I wonder how Republicans would respond if Dems came to them and offered a compromise - a constitutional amendment giving DC a single Senator and two members of the House (pushing the House to 437 seats)

With that said - there is 0% of this happening

The reason I say it won’t is because there is almost zero chance of Dems taking the house. I mean zero. So stop the fantasy.

If it did however - Dems would be insane not too. For one because it’s the right thing to xh do, giving Americans without representation the representation they deserve. And for two it evens out our electoral system which is HEAVILY titled against the will of the people and to the Republicans. I

The citizens of DC should reject this “compromise” because it does not make them a state.
The purpose of statehood is not to give an area two Senators.  Its purpose is to allow the residents of that area to choose their own laws and government, rather than being governed by people elected by the residents of somewhere else.

D.C. has had complete home rule since 1973.  They already get to decide their own laws.

As a compromise, D.C. (and other U.S. territories) should be given voting representation in the House commensurate with its population.  Giving DC two senators greatly exacerbates the disproportionate influence small states have in that body.

Alternatively, Congress could clarify that D.C. residents are also residents of Maryland who just happen to be living in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and are thus eligible to vote in Maryland elections.   

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Stop worrying about this until after Eday

[President Johnson]

I'd say lean Yes, but 52 senators and keeping the House is pretty unlikely. At least for 2022.

[John Dule]

No, and that's a good thing. I hate small states and they should be destroyed.

[Frodo]

If it became apparent that it was going to pass and become a reality - I wonder how Republicans would respond if Dems came to them and offered a compromise - a constitutional amendment giving DC a single Senator and two members of the House (pushing the House to 437 seats)

With that said - there is 0% of this happening

The reason I say it won’t is because there is almost zero chance of Dems taking the house. I mean zero. So stop the fantasy.

If it did however - Dems would be insane not too. For one because it’s the right thing to xh do, giving Americans without representation the representation they deserve. And for two it evens out our electoral system which is HEAVILY titled against the will of the people and to the Republicans. I

The citizens of DC should reject this “compromise” because it does not make them a state.
The purpose of statehood is not to give an area two Senators.  Its purpose is to allow the residents of that area to choose their own laws and government, rather than being governed by people elected by the residents of somewhere else.

D.C. has had complete home rule since 1973.  They already get to decide their own laws.

As a compromise, D.C. (and other U.S. territories) should be given voting representation in the House commensurate with its population.  Giving DC two senators greatly exacerbates the disproportionate influence small states have in that body.

Alternatively, Congress could clarify that D.C. residents are also residents of Maryland who just happen to be living in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, and are thus eligible to vote in Maryland elections.   

I can definitely live with this.